The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Sun Jun 04, 2017 8:49 am

Webbman wrote:If you look at it from a biological perspective things really need to be born, and while you might not think this applies to stars or planets, it does definitely apply to you, so there is no reason to believe you are exclusive to the universe.

things are born, and we see it all the time.

that being said , none of you sees the solar wind the sun is pushing out and a sort of nourishing milk from the mother. Its full of things a new planet might need to grow, and there's even an umbilical cord in the form of the solar circuit.

Certainly if your being bombarded by protons, electrons and energy you will likely gain mass even from this. I'm not discounting the capture of planets, but isn't it just more reasonable that the sun gives birth to planets and nourishes them with its light, solar wind and mass ejections.

I know most see the universe as a dead material clock work, but that's not what I see. I see a vibrant sun with many feeding youngsters, and a few almost ready to leave the nest, draw on the galactic current, and fly on their own. Each one unique in its own right.


I like exercises like this because I can find basic principles which explain these objects, which the prevailing ideas cannot.

The Sun is mostly hydrogen. Mercury is mostly iron. How exactly does a mostly iron object come out of an object that is mostly hydrogen?

It is simple. It did not happen.

I have overviewed a simple principle that explains that a mostly hydrogen object large like the Sun becomes a mostly iron object that is a lot smaller.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1603.0422v1.pdf

The Principle of Diminishing Solar Abundance or the Solar Abundance Principle of Stellar Evolution states:

"As stars evolve into rocky, differentiated worlds, the ratio of lighter elements to heavy elements diminishes considerably."

The tiny bit of iron the Sun has that which does not get ejected sinks to the center as it cools and dies (evolves). We can see these intermediate stages of star's evolving by looking into outer space with telescopes.

As well, I have placed all these stars on a simple graph. You will see that the Mercury type objects are extremely old, dead stars. Unfortunately this also means that since Mercury type dead stars are extremely old, they could not have been ejected from much younger objects such as the Sun, nor could have any of the really old objects such as Earth, Venus, Pluto, Neptune, Uranus, Jupiter, Saturn or Mars could have come from the Sun, because they are vastly older. A young hot object forming objects that are older than itself? That is a contradiction explained in the terms of the "birthing" as you stated above. To state that they were "birthed" from the Sun, would be like saying a 1 year old baby could give birth to a 100 year old woman.
Image

I have tried to teach electric universe people this, but still not a single mention in any youtube video or statement. It is as if the discovery never happened. This is the plight of major discoveries I have learned. The current paradigm ignores it and hopes that it disappears. Too late for that. It is here to stay, forever.
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Sun Jun 04, 2017 9:14 am

I also put up a paper on vixra.org again stating quite clearly that, "Neptune is a star."

Here is the paper:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1706.0002v1.pdf

I have placed it on the diagram. There are predicted via stellar metamorphosis, to be billions of Neptunes found in the galaxy. They are very common.
Image
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Webbman » Sun Jun 04, 2017 11:26 am

your model doesn't really account for any kind of external powering of suns, which is why they would "Burn out" in the first place.

how do you account for the "string of beads? seen everywhere?

a birthing model would necessitate that the new suns be in the same current so a string of beads would make sense since the current would be the source of sustenance for a new star.

my theory is that stars when they begin to draw on the galactic current (and they cant do that until their electric field breaches the heliosphere through a combination of size and orbit) become radiant and thus repulsive to each other, and thus weaker one would be ejected only to start a new system.

it would make sense that as their radiance increases they would be pushed out farther from the sun.
The secret to the universe is a rubber band.
Webbman
 
Posts: 368
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

Re: Juno Just Shattered What We Knew About Jupiter

Unread postby D_Archer » Mon Jun 05, 2017 2:27 am

Lloyd wrote:I've been wanting to know since a few years ago how large are the solid parts of the gas giants. They seem to be saying now that the gravity measurements suggest that Jupiter doesn't have a very solid core, but that it's slushy or indistinct and from 7 to 25 Earth masses. That seems kind of small. If Jupiter lost all its gaseous atmosphere, the remaining core would probably be not over 24,000 miles in diameter. I guess that's not so small, about the size of the smaller gas giants. I wonder if the slushy core would consolidate into a rocky body.



https://www.sciencealert.com/images/2017-05/Juno2.jpg

Blue

Jeffrey remarked the blue is probably methane (?)*

As per GTSM Jupiter should evolve into bluer color (ie uranus/neptune), this process takes a very long time.. the swirls indicate mixing of elements, together with basic chemistry and electrochemistry there is a lot going on on Jupiter, this is a very interesting stage to investigate... i think it can evolve and a rocky body could form but at later stages.

Regards,
Daniel

* Three Methane Wavelengths http://www.ciclops.org/view/93/Three-Methane-Wavelengths?js=1
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby comingfrom » Mon Jun 05, 2017 8:10 am

The good thing I see about that chart is that it doesn't have a black hole in it.
But I agree with Webbman.
Major variations in brightness have been observed in certain stars over just a few years.
These observations go against a self powered slow evolution model.

If a dim dwarf star wanders into a region of higher density plasma it will brighten, and vica versa, if a large bright star moves into a region of lower density plasma, it will become dimmer. Such events can happen over night.

Below the photospheres of stars is a normal rocky planet. We only see the glow from the charge and matter they are pulling in. The actual size of a star may be deceptive. If a star becomes overcharged for its capacity, an expulsion (CME) occurs, and a planet may form from such an expulsion, if the conditions are right. This is how you can get an iron rich planet from a star.

Meanwhile the already formed planets are growing by accumulating matter from the solar wind as they orbit. The inner planets may have the advantage in collecting the heavier elements from the solar wind, which also might explain Mercury's high iron content, and why the outer planets are more gaseous.
~Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby D_Archer » Tue Jun 06, 2017 1:43 am

comingfrom wrote:The good thing I see about that chart is that it doesn't have a black hole in it.
But I agree with Webbman.
Major variations in brightness have been observed in certain stars over just a few years.
These observations go against a self powered slow evolution model.

If a dim dwarf star wanders into a region of higher density plasma it will brighten, and vica versa, if a large bright star moves into a region of lower density plasma, it will become dimmer. Such events can happen over night.

Below the photospheres of stars is a normal rocky planet. We only see the glow from the charge and matter they are pulling in. The actual size of a star may be deceptive. If a star becomes overcharged for its capacity, an expulsion (CME) occurs, and a planet may form from such an expulsion, if the conditions are right. This is how you can get an iron rich planet from a star.

Meanwhile the already formed planets are growing by accumulating matter from the solar wind as they orbit. The inner planets may have the advantage in collecting the heavier elements from the solar wind, which also might explain Mercury's high iron content, and why the outer planets are more gaseous.
~Paul


Can you cite an actual observation?* Also In GTSM stars can brighten but not for long, these are CME'e, flares, (electro)chemical processes switching gears...

*as far as i know, mainstream usually observes z-pinches/birthing stars/"planetery nebulae" when they talk about variable stars, and yes brightenings/dimmings happen at birth...

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby comingfrom » Tue Jun 06, 2017 3:31 am

Thank you, Daniel.

A recent one reported in this thread: Epic fail in black hole theory. :)

In the linked article we are told
N6946-BH1, began to brighten weakly in 2009. It vanished altogether in 2015


I found this comment interesting
The dying star was about 25 times as massive as Earth's sun and located in NGC 6946, a spiral galaxy 22 million light-years from Earth. (Astronomers nickname this galaxy the "Fireworks Galaxy" because so many supernovas happen there, including recently discovered SN 2017eaw.)
So we observe a galaxy where lots of stars go pop, and at least one "giant" star stopped shining altogether. Seems to me we simply have a galaxy with very variable plasma densities.

Of course, they fall back on black hole theory to explain it.
Rather than exploding into a supernova before collapsing into a black hole, as expected, one giant star skipped the pyrotechnics and went straight to the collapse.


I have come across other examples of brightness variation observations, but not as dramatic as this, in my reading.
~Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Tue Jun 06, 2017 7:26 am

D_Archer wrote:
comingfrom wrote:The good thing I see about that chart is that it doesn't have a black hole in it.
But I agree with Webbman.
Major variations in brightness have been observed in certain stars over just a few years.
These observations go against a self powered slow evolution model.

If a dim dwarf star wanders into a region of higher density plasma it will brighten, and vica versa, if a large bright star moves into a region of lower density plasma, it will become dimmer. Such events can happen over night.

Below the photospheres of stars is a normal rocky planet. We only see the glow from the charge and matter they are pulling in. The actual size of a star may be deceptive. If a star becomes overcharged for its capacity, an expulsion (CME) occurs, and a planet may form from such an expulsion, if the conditions are right. This is how you can get an iron rich planet from a star.

Meanwhile the already formed planets are growing by accumulating matter from the solar wind as they orbit. The inner planets may have the advantage in collecting the heavier elements from the solar wind, which also might explain Mercury's high iron content, and why the outer planets are more gaseous.
~Paul


Can you cite an actual observation?* Also In GTSM stars can brighten but not for long, these are CME'e, flares, (electro)chemical processes switching gears...

*as far as i know, mainstream usually observes z-pinches/birthing stars/"planetery nebulae" when they talk about variable stars, and yes brightenings/dimmings happen at birth...

Regards,
Daniel


That is a good point. In GTSM turbulence in a star signals youthfulness. Brightenings/dimmings that happen in larger frequencies signal youthfulness. For the most part in this theory, the more violent the star, the younger it is. Violence signals youth, as they age they cool down and chill out. Kind of like emotionally unstable boys that grow up into level headed men.

1. Turbulence such as ejected material from the surface into interstellar space signals extremely youthful behavior. The Sun for instance has lots of ejected material, therefore it is very young, the complete opposite of establishment's dogma which has it older than the Earth.

2. Meteorological turbulence such as high wind speeds are higher on younger stars, as well as the size of the storms. Jupiter's storms are a good example.

3. Lack of turbulence or meteorological activity signals extreme age, such as Mercury, which does not have an atmosphere at all.

Put in the context of age/turbulence related activity, it means Neptune is more youthful than Uranus, as the wind speeds are higher.
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby D_Archer » Tue Jun 06, 2017 7:58 am

comingfrom wrote:Thank you, Daniel.

A recent one reported in this thread: Epic fail in black hole theory. :)

In the linked article we are told
N6946-BH1, began to brighten weakly in 2009. It vanished altogether in 2015


I found this comment interesting
The dying star was about 25 times as massive as Earth's sun and located in NGC 6946, a spiral galaxy 22 million light-years from Earth. (Astronomers nickname this galaxy the "Fireworks Galaxy" because so many supernovas happen there, including recently discovered SN 2017eaw.)
So we observe a galaxy where lots of stars go pop, and at least one "giant" star stopped shining altogether. Seems to me we simply have a galaxy with very variable plasma densities.

Of course, they fall back on black hole theory to explain it.
Rather than exploding into a supernova before collapsing into a black hole, as expected, one giant star skipped the pyrotechnics and went straight to the collapse.


I have come across other examples of brightness variation observations, but not as dramatic as this, in my reading.
~Paul


Hi Paul, i was just reading that!, good for a few laughs, quotable material >

It doesn't necessarily make sense, said Stanek, professor of astronomy at Ohio State


It sure does not, years of theory of nova's producing black holes, actual observations come in, mmm, no nova needed.

And then this quote >
should have exploded in a very bright supernova. Instead, it fizzled out -- and then left behind a black hole


Fizzling out does not sound very dramatic not like an intense process. If Jeffrey is right and mainstream has a cognitive dissonance when it comes to stars and planets being the same object, of course when it is no longer there it can only be a "black hole". The idea that a star can still exist after it stops shining does not compute.

They did not mention what kind of star they were observing, but they say giant and in the graphic top of the page you see a red star, in GTSM these are red dwarfs and smaller then our sun and they evolve to being brown dwarfs. Red dwarfs are also know as flare stars, some last outbursts could explain the weak brightening before it shines too little for us to observe it.

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Tue Jun 06, 2017 8:00 am

comingfrom wrote:Thank you, Daniel.

A recent one reported in this thread: Epic fail in black hole theory. :)

In the linked article we are told
N6946-BH1, began to brighten weakly in 2009. It vanished altogether in 2015


I found this comment interesting
The dying star was about 25 times as massive as Earth's sun and located in NGC 6946, a spiral galaxy 22 million light-years from Earth. (Astronomers nickname this galaxy the "Fireworks Galaxy" because so many supernovas happen there, including recently discovered SN 2017eaw.)
So we observe a galaxy where lots of stars go pop, and at least one "giant" star stopped shining altogether. Seems to me we simply have a galaxy with very variable plasma densities.

Of course, they fall back on black hole theory to explain it.
Rather than exploding into a supernova before collapsing into a black hole, as expected, one giant star skipped the pyrotechnics and went straight to the collapse.


I have come across other examples of brightness variation observations, but not as dramatic as this, in my reading.
~Paul


So here are two extremely important points that they do not mention anywhere:

1. They accept gravitational collapse where the star collapses on itself and does not lose energy/mass. (Not observed anywhere).

2. They reject gravitational collapse where the gravitational potential energy is transformed into chemical/mechanical/electromagnetic energy. (Observed stellar evolution, where stars cool, collapse and lose mass/energy which transforms the left over matter into chemicals/weather/light. They call the evolved/evolving stars "planets/exoplanets".)

For a star to G collapse it needs to lose mass/energy. So the rate at which it can collapse is determined by how fast it loses mass/energy. If no mass/energy is lost, then the star will not collapse. Mind you, they still accept stars as being closed thermodynamic systems, yet they are open, they lose mass too! So it is natural reasoning to them to gravitationally collapse stars into really dense objects, because none of the mass is lost in their formulations. It is their Achilles Heel. All this means black holes have no formation mechanism, nor do they fit in stellar evolution. It also means they do not exist in any size since they cannot exist in stellar mass sizes.

Makes you wonder what the LIGO thing actually detected.
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Tue Jun 06, 2017 8:40 am

D_Archer wrote:
Fizzling out does not sound very dramatic not like an intense process. If Jeffrey is right and mainstream has a cognitive dissonance when it comes to stars and planets being the same object, of course when it is no longer there it can only be a "black hole". The idea that a star can still exist after it stops shining does not compute.

They did not mention what kind of star they were observing, but they say giant and in the graphic top of the page you see a red star, in GTSM these are red dwarfs and smaller then our sun and they evolve to being brown dwarfs. Red dwarfs are also know as flare stars, some last outbursts could explain the weak brightening before it shines too little for us to observe it.

Regards,
Daniel


It is wild. They cannot have stars that no longer shine, if it no longer shines it is "black hole". The 100% damning aspect to all of it is that if black holes were so abundant, why, out of the soon to be tens of thousands of exoplanet (evolved/evolving/dead stars), there are no observations indirect/direct of stars orbiting seemingly nothing? In all exoplanet cases they are orbiting something that is observed.

You would think if black holes were so abundant (or even real) there would have been hundreds found by now in the Kepler data. There would be weird light curves of the stars from the black holes, in this case the light curves would be magnified due to their claimed gravitational lensing effect (which is doubly ugh) as the object passes in front of the star.

So far the count of black holes is 0 out of 2704 planetary (star) systems.

It really is not a prediction via GTSM, but a simultaneous occurance. As the count of exoplanets increases, there will be no increase in black holes found in star systems that host older stars (exoplanets).

It is 0 out of 2704.

It will be 0 out of 25,000,000.

The real question thus is how far does that number have to move to the right before they abandon the concept of "black hole"? I mean, I can see them still accepting "black hole" even with 0 out of 25,000,000,000 star systems found.
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby comingfrom » Tue Jun 06, 2017 5:32 pm

Thank you, Jeffery.

That is a good point. In GTSM turbulence in a star signals youthfulness. Brightenings/dimmings that happen in larger frequencies signal youthfulness. For the most part in this theory, the more violent the star, the younger it is. Violence signals youth, as they age they cool down and chill out. Kind of like emotionally unstable boys that grow up into level headed men.

1. Turbulence such as ejected material from the surface into interstellar space signals extremely youthful behavior. The Sun for instance has lots of ejected material, therefore it is very young, the complete opposite of establishment's dogma which has it older than the Earth.

2. Meteorological turbulence such as high wind speeds are higher on younger stars, as well as the size of the storms. Jupiter's storms are a good example.

3. Lack of turbulence or meteorological activity signals extreme age, such as Mercury, which does not have an atmosphere at all.

Put in the context of age/turbulence related activity, it means Neptune is more youthful than Uranus, as the wind speeds are higher.
Youthfulness isn't a satisfactory mechanical explanation, for me.

And since we can't check stars' date of births to verify their age, it is pure speculation to attribute variation, size, color, even any attribute, to youthfulness.

~
Thank you, D_Archer.

They did not mention what kind of star they were observing, but they say giant and in the graphic top of the page you see a red star, in GTSM these are red dwarfs and smaller then our sun and they evolve to being brown dwarfs.
They do tell us it was 25 times as massive as our sun.

~Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby D_Archer » Wed Jun 07, 2017 4:51 am

comingfrom wrote:They do tell us it was 25 times as massive as our sun.

~Paul


That is an assumption, when mainstream says red giant, they mean it is very large, but is it? Very likely all red stars are red dwarfs, ie smaller than our sun.

Remember mainstream has admitted that ALL their distance calculations are incorrect by large margins. They are looking at a galaxy 12 million light years away, specks of light, the mass and size come from theory not actual observation.

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Webbman » Wed Jun 07, 2017 5:09 am

all the planets are pretty unique apart from being spheres. I would imagine the suns they might produce one day would be as unique as they are.

I don't believe you can guess the size or age of suns by the color. If anything I would guess the sun to be very old based only on the number of planets it has and maybe the size of its largest planets.
Last edited by Webbman on Wed Jun 07, 2017 5:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
The secret to the universe is a rubber band.
Webbman
 
Posts: 368
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Wed Jun 07, 2017 5:17 am

D_Archer wrote:
comingfrom wrote:They do tell us it was 25 times as massive as our sun.

~Paul


That is an assumption, when mainstream says red giant, they mean it is very large, but is it? Very likely all red stars are red dwarfs, ie smaller than our sun.

Remember mainstream has admitted that ALL their distance calculations are incorrect by large margins. They are looking at a galaxy 12 million light years away, specks of light, the mass and size come from theory not actual observation.

Regards,
Daniel


Not only that, but "red giants" do not have defined photospheres, which is a characteristic of young hot stars.

This is very new to even me, but here it is:

Using the principle of spherical celestial objects in stellar metamorphosis, it is determined that red giant stars are not actually stars. The principle of spherical celestial objects states that, “gravitation keeps objects mostly spherical as they form and evolve.” If the object is not spherical, then chances are there is another force more dominant than gravitation that either has caused, or is causing the object to be deformed. In the case of mis-shapen asteroids they were created by impacts, so they had enough mechanical energy to ignore gravitation after the impact to form irregular shapes that are not mostly spherical. In the case of red giants, they do not possess a defined photosphere, which is in essence the defining characteristic of a mostly spherical star. Since they are therefore hypothesized to not actually be spherical, then we can reason that they are also not actually stars as claimed by establishment. This reasoning is both counter to both the author’s previous attempts to explain why these objects are both so big, as well as the authors claims of them having their distances mis-measured. It is best to have more options, as red giants just might be the very beginning of a star’s birthing. They are actually the nebulas with which a single star is born in. The giant nebula (red giant) forms the white dwarf in its center. The outer atmosphere then dissipates away forming a planetary nebula. The white dwarf then expands greatly to release the heat. Once it becomes as big as it will get, it then begins shrinking and losing mass, going along the regular lines of evolution as proposed by stellar metamorphosis.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1703.0283v1.pdf

If you watch this video, there is a giant red line in the very beginning on the graph. That is what red giants possibly are, just the cloud that starts everything off. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49iF86KKxGs
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest